> I've been reading what I can of the rant about proper nettiquette of late.
> IMHO, it is simply easier to send plain text unless the circumstances require
> otherwise. However, wouldn't it be better to send html as an attached
> document instead of imbedding it right smack in the place I need to read?
> All those HTML tags are visible in kmail (and some don't translate well).
> 
> mind you, I don't want to appear as a faq nazi or a netcop, but you have to
> consider the audience. in my case, I am a minority of possibly 5 on this list
> who are visually impaireddealing with hard coded html on poorly designed
> sites is one thing, but I'd rather not have to deal with it here too (and why
> should I have to create a filter to filter it out? Thats not my job!).
> 
> so, for those arguing both points, have a little consideration of who else
> may be reading the list here (via the list or google of whatever search
> engine trips their trigger). are we going to present ourselves in a
> professional manner, or are we going to behave like a bunch of spoiled kids,
> have a flame war and disband (a lot like what happened to both the amiga and
> commodore users groups of a few years back).
> 
> comments appreciated.
> live chat at pretorian.ath.cx:6667 or pcman.ath.cx:6667

And another advantage goes to plain text.  I prefer it because then the receiver
(who may be hard of seeing) determines the font, size and color of the message
to read it, not the sender.

I don't like the idea of adding the html message as an attachment.  That just
makes the message that much larger (twice the text, plus all the useless html
tags).